On Apr 19, 12:24=A0am, kmc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
> In article
<c42ad6c9-9c82-4146-a520-272fcd393...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Michael Price =A0<nini_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 18, 12:04=A0am, kmc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Kenneth McVay OBC) wrote:
> >> In article
<a8333387-8372-403c-ae6b-364b24904...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >> Michael Price =A0<nini_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 17, 3:16=A0pm, kmc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Kenneth McVay OBC)
wrote:
> >> >> In article
<533a6f30-ff33-41dd-bdc6-07963ffa1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> >> >> =A0<neogenesisf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >Hate crime laws were established to protect the downtrodden
differe=
nt
> >> >> >from the massively racist society of the U.S., or at least that's
w=
hat
> >> >> >they want you to think. They serve to show that all Americans
deser=
ve
> >> >> >justice but some deserve more than others. When people assault
and
> >> >> >murder each other it's alway a hate crime. I don't think someone
wh=
o
> >> >> >was particularly fond of me would mug me and beat me up. Hate
crime=
> >> >> >legislation wouldn't be too horrible if it only allowed the judge
t=
o
> >> >> >extend a sentence but in many states it requires that he do so.
>
> >> >> Tell it to the Tutsis.
>
> >> > What the hell are you talking about? =A0What good would hate crime
> >> >legislation do for people who were the subject of genocide?
=A0Surely
> >> >the penalty for multiple murder is about as bad as it can get and
> >> >hate crime laws wouldn't increase it.
>
> >> The Hutu government actively fostered hatred against Tutsis, using
the
> >> government's own radio facilities to do it. Genocide was encouraged
> >> through hate speech.
>
> > =A0And if hate speech laws had been on the books who would have
> >prosecuted?
>
> Those who broadcast the incitements to genocide, perhaps?
You mean the ones who were doing the exact thing the people who
prosecute people wanted them to do? That's kinda unlikely.
>
> >> Without that hate speech, there would have been no genocide.
>
> > =A0Without the government paying people to kill there would have been
> >no genocide. =A0The government is far more likely to be prosecuted for
> >that than for a few radio broadcasts.
>
> The radio broadcasts were the source of the genocide.
>
No the government was. Since the government decided who would
be prosecuted it is unlikely that the broadcasters would be prosecuted
unless those who actually arranged the genocide were being prosecuted,
which would be a far bigger deal.
> >> The same thing happened during the NAZI era, where government organs
of=
> >> propaganda were used to create the atmosphere which permitted
genocide.=
I
> >> think it is accurate to say that the Holocaust began with hate
speech.
>
> > =A0But if hate speech had been all that the government had done it
would=
> > not have created the holocaust. =A0Murder is already illegal as is
> > genocide, so what is the point of making hate speech illegal?
>
> The point of making it illegal would seem to be to dissuade folks
> from employing it, don't you think?
>
And how would it do that?
> Hate speech in NAZI Germany paved the way to genocide. It was the
vehicle
> that prepared an entire nation for the horrors to come.
>
And it was official government policy, that's the point. There is
no way
it would be prosecuted, whatever the laws on the books, until the
Nazis
lost power.
> --
> 'I fully accept this, it's a fact. The discussion on Auschwitz, the gas
> chambers and the Holocaust is finished ... it's useless to dispute it'.
> (David Irving on Holocaust denial, as quoted by his Austrian lawyer)
> The Nizkor Project: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0http://www.nizk=
or.org/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
